Sex Ed debate

So i guess since none of us are going to be debating this topic, i can start off a little bit of conversation just because i like the subject.

I think sex ed in school is extremely important and should not be rid of.

Ever since going back thousands of years, animals have had one sole reason for living. That reason is to procreate. Needless to say procreation in animals has been instinctual ever since animals evolved from single celled critters. So looking at now, even thousands of years later, procreating is still our number one reason for living. Every baby that is born comes with one purpose that is programmed in their heads from the factory, this purpose is to procreate. This is what is called an intrinsic action. Intrinsic actions are defined as an action that requires no thought process to carry out, like an eye blink, or breathing in and out.

This intrinsic action is what causes children to want to have sex. If somebody took one boy and one girl from their parents right at birth and placed them in solitary rooms until they are 18 years old, with absolutely no human contact throughout their life, and then one day just put them in the same room, within a couple hours those two kids would figure out how to have sex.

Having sex is just what humans do. It is an instinctual feeling that we all have no matter what we are taught or how we are brought up. Having sex ed in schools should be a requirement. No matter what we would like to think, kids in high school and maybe even younger are gonna have sex one way or another. Sex ed classes would at least give them a better understanding of the risks that come with having sex. This should make them aware of the responsibilities of a pregnancy or the chances and reactions of acquiring an STD. These classes could make them aware of all the different types of birth control and how to obtain and use them. I do believe that a lot of clinics around give out condoms for free so why not take advantage of those opportunities? Because kids aren't aware of these opportunities. Sex ed class could change that.

Only Child Social Interaction

Many children grow up shy while others are more social. It has often been wondered if having siblings makes a difference in how the child interacts socially. A study was conducted by Ohio State University sampling 13,000 children ages 11-18 years of age. They found that there was no difference in social skill of kids that had siblings vs kids who did not.

The one thing I found frustrating when looking at the research conducted to determine if children better suited socially if they have siblings, was that I found very few studies on the topic. The other think I found frustrating was that I don't think this study was very well conducted. They had the children pick five boys and five girls that were their friends. The problem with this is that they are studying popularity rather than social skills. In my opinion, there is a difference in popularity and social skills. I wish the study that was conducted out look more at how the child interacts with his or her peers.

I know how my sister has impacted my life and I know siblings have impacted other peoples lives. Even though it may not affect a child's popularity it would be interesting to see if there is a correlation in personality traits like empathy and shyness.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10967749

http://www.celebrities-with-diseases.com/news-health/friendship-no-different-for-only-children-says-research-7133.html

The Debate Over GQ's Glee Cover

Several weeks ago there was a story in the news about the cast of Glee was featured in GQ Magazine posing in a racy photo shoot. On television, these characters are about 16 years old and in high school. In real life they are in their mid 20s and working. This highly controversial issues has lit up blog sites.

The Parents Television Council (PTC) denounced the makers of the show glee. The PTC says that GQ is written for men and it is disturbing that they would sexualize actresses who play high school-ages charters. They even say it borders of pedophilia. Katie Curic is also a fan of Glee because they cover difficult issues on the show like single parenthood and being gay. However, she was disappointing when she saw the latest photo shoot.

Cast member of Glee Dianna Agron tackles the controversy herself saying "If you are hurt or these photos make you uncomfortable, it was never our intention. And if your eight-year-old has a copy of our GQ cover in hand, again I am sorry. But I would have to ask, how on earth did it get there?" Jim Nelson, Editor-in-Chief of GQ, tells The Insider that, "As often happens in Hollywood, these 'kids' are in their twenties," he adds. "Cory Monteith is almost 30! I think they're old enough to do what they want."

Now I will tell you my opinion on this debate. The cast of Glee has a life beyond the television show. GQ is a mans magazine and is meant for adults and not children. If you go to the store you will notice that those types of magazines are located near the top of the shelves so that children are less likely to reach it. At some point the parents need to step in and not let their 8 year old flip through mans magazines. Children are not as sensitive as the media makes them out to be. When I was growing up Britney Spears was huge. I had all of her cds. When she started dressing, dancing, and singing provocatively I stopped idolizing her as much. Just because she was acting provocatively didn't make me act provocatively.


http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/news/release/2010/1020.asp

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20020239-10391698.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

http://www.theinsider.com/news/3372358_GQ_Responds_to_Accusations_of_Borderline_Pedophilia?tag=contentMain;contentBody

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/racy-glee-photos-gq-time-tone/story?id=11936706

http://www.deadline.com/2010/10/racy-glee-gq-shoot-creates-controversy/

Is the SAT Really a Good Predictive Measure for College Success?

The following are a few differing opinions from a blogg on metafilter.com

http://www.metafilter.com/97324/Going-SAT-Free

"Hypothetically, standardized tests (especially "general aptitude" tests like the SAT) are supposed to at least partially weed out rich kids who have ample resources to pad their resumes. They still have an advantage, but it's not one that can be overtly "cheated" by anybody with enough money, which suspiciously seems like the case here. " The more and more we shift admissions away from objective measures and towards the interestingness of admissions essays and the number of extracurricular activities, the more we shift towards a process that disproportionately helps people who have all the money in the world to spend on those things.”

Then again this student admitted that they would not have gotten into college without the SAT because he/she had such a low GPA and what does that say about this person?

It's also worth pointing out, though, that one of the reasons a particular high school may have good connections with college admission boards is that students from that school tend to prosper at a given college.


“I was a bright kid who had a terrible family life in high school that ate into my extracurriculars and GPA somewhat- alcoholic father, parents divorced and remarried, blah blah it's a long story. Point is, I was one of those kids that did very well on tests, including the SATS, and APs and essays and things like that, but because of a crappy day-to-day life, arguments over money, and whatever else, was constantly tired in class and struggled to be "an achiever" Going to college and getting away from my parents was the best thing that ever happened to me.”

The above quotes argue the benefits of the SAT and I agree that it does have some pros like weeding out rich kids with connections, grade inflation, and a way to show intelligence to overcome a poor GPA due to family circumstances or what have you. However, I do not think standardized test scores should be considered a major indicator or future success. GPA and extracurriculars and essays should all be taken into account (which they are).
Take myself for example, I graduated with a 3.67, had an impressive list of youth activism, volunteer activities, and awards. However, when I took the ACT and got a 19, I freaked out. I didn't even make it through 1/3 of each section, but the ones I did get to were mostly correct. I took it again...same thing, so I went an got myself tested to see if there was something wrong with my brain that was out of my control. Indeed there was, but by the time I figured that out, I had already been accepted to the UM in Missoula without the chance to explain my low score in an essay. Thank goodness the UM accepts many walks of live (as long as you are coming from an MT school).

Bully for you

The topic of bullying certainly can bring up some painful memories for some of us I'm sure! As I was doing some research for our presentations, I noticed a lot of literature, studies and outrage on bullying in the schools. What amazes me is the international experience in bullying that seems to happen cross culturally. Some of the studies I glanced at were from Norway, The Netherlands, Britian, Uganda, Egypt and many, many more. A true universal concept!
I recall the story of Cain and Able in the Old Testament-was God a bully in the sense he ignored Cain and favored Able? Oh boy...now a biblical case for the ultimate bully!? What got me thinking along these lines were the definitions I found on bullying -ignoring others, dismissing the feelings of others, spreading rumors about others not to mentin the physical act of hitting, punching and kicking.
Is murder the ultimate form of bullying, or people being driven to commit suicide?
What I realize now, there can be no "cure" for bullying unless I set the example toothers in everything I do. My actions are most likely going to be what helps a bully to look at his/her actions and decide for him/herself if they want what I have. It doesn't cost me a thing!!

Working Mothers and Substance Abuse

The other day I was listening to the NPR news show "Here and Now". One of the discussions dealt with mothers who work, raise children, take care of the family and have some form of substance abuse. The central theme was the fact these mothers don't fit the stereotypical substance abuse victim. They don't go to bars and drink, they don't go home and use (alcohol or drugs) while doing chores. What made them different was when they abused a substance. Many times a mother would drink or use when she took the children out shopping, to the park ( I heard the term 3 martini outing for the first time during this discussion) or when the children went to bed after all the household chores were done.
One of the many discussion points I found interesting was the fact that many of these mothers never believed they were abusing some from of drug or alcohol nor did they feel there was any harm in what they were doing. All of the mothers interviewed were in some from of rehab or had been in rehab usually by court order because they got caught either driving or were involved in some type of crash or altercation with their children that got law enforcement involved.
When the mothers were in rehab, many of them were able to bring their children to the sessions. Brining the children seemed to increase the success rate of the rehab and make the mother aware of the potential consequences of her substance abuse. The biggest factor appears to be the taking away of one's child. Many children called law enforcement toturn thier mothers in because they were afraid thier mother would hurt herself or them by getting in and accident. Most of the children seemed to think turning thier mother in and going to rehab with her was good for the family unit and seemed to help the mother get her life back on track.
One of the mothers interviewed for the show states she thinks about the potential loss of her children if she relapses and that is what keeps her sober. She also stated she having her children attend rehab with her gave them the tools they need to not make the same mistakes she made with substance abuse.
This discussion made me think of the discussions we have had in class about how children react and rebound from bad things. A centeral point of the discussion was the number of children who were involved with either turning the mother in to authorities or taking part in the rehab. Children certainly are resilient! Overall it struck me how the children had adapted to thier mothers substance abuse and, more importantly, how well they readjusted to their mother when she was done with rehab and living a different life.

Moral Development

There is an inner voice which emerges at age six. This inner voice determines right and wrong, but it also emits feelings of morality. Some children feel this voice early on in life, while others do not. These sentiments create emotional stability for a person. Feelings of love, compassion, and kindness all stem for this sensible "voice."

There is not a direct correlation between social-economa-strata (S.E.S.) and the prevalence of this voice. Some of those born as an elite have gone on to have emotionally impoverished lives. Some of the most loving parents have had unmoral children, while some poor abused children in the ghetto have turned out to be world-renowned human rights activists.

While knowledge of right vs. wrong is determined by the pattern previously set by one's parents, morality is not. A child develops a sense of morality based on his or her assessment of their early surroundings. They decide who they care about and who cares for them, then they generalize these feelings to others in their life.

Let us take the example of the abused child in the ghetto. Perhaps there was one person in their life, such as their grandmother, who explained that life had many wonderful things to offer. Their purpose in living then became escape from their present situation. This was an incentive to learn and prepare for independence. They did not generalize their feelings towards the rest of the world. Here there is a good chance that the child's morality will be accentuated later in life

Now let us examine a child from an upper S.E.S. family. This child has gotten everything it desires since birth. However, it does not value the opinions of its parents. It does not attempt to please them, or work hard to keep out of their wrath. When dismay is expressed for their actions, they feel no remorse. The groundwork earlier laid lacked devotion, and emotion. Chances are that the parents never truly expressed what they felt, who they were, or allowed the child to understand the family problems.

Another important aspect in creating a moral child is a feeling of "belonging." If the child feels that it plays an important role in the family, it will develop a sense of morality based on protecting it's loved ones. It will feel that it takes care of others, and therefore what they think truly matters, and how they feel is crucial to his well-being.

A moral child is not too difficult to create as long as emotion is kept in the picture. Allow the child to feel as if he or she is a part of the family. Tell the child your feelings, and why you feel that way. Allow them to see you when you are sad, and then see the consequences on their own life.

http://www.allsands.com/kids/moraldevelopmen_tvn_gn.ht

Personally, I have experienced this, to a degree. I was not raised in a "ghetto", nor unloved by my parents. But I was misguided with some issues and did not feel apart of my family. I did however, have grandparents that enriched me with the morals that I have today, and I did feel as if I were a part of something there. As early as I can remember, I preferred to be with my grandparents. In a Substance Abuse Prevention course that I was involved in, I learned about resilience. resilience is defined as: an ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resilience
It was easy for me to recover or adjust when I had to go back home, because I was taught good morals and a sense of belonging while at my grandparents house.

Babies for Bullies?

I read an article today that I thought was interesting and it relates to our discussion on bullies. According to a study by a Canadian based program called Roots of Empathy, if you introduce a baby to an elementary school classroom, it will increase kindness and empathy and decrease bullying. This program sets up regular visits in which a mother brings her baby to the school and the children interact with him. The idea is that instead of punishing bullies, the schools hope to inspire acts of kindness among the students. The kids also learn how to understand and respond to the baby's behaviors and emotions. This may sound a little far fetched, but the results have shown that introducing a baby to the classroom has brought on kindness and understanding even in the most difficult of children. Now, I'm not so sure I'm ready to believe that babies are the cure for bullying, but it's definitely an interesting theory.

http://www.parentdish.com/2010/11/12/could-babies-serve-as-a-cure-for-bullies/

Teachers and Tenure

Should teachers be given tenure? This debate has been going on for as long as I can remember. People who oppose giving teachers tenure believe that if teachers weren't guaranteed jobs for as long as they like, then they would focus more on being the best teachers they can be. When a teacher gets tenure, it's virtually impossible to get rid of him or her even if many people agree that he or she isn't doing a very good job teaching. Opponents to giving tenure also say that it shows that if a teacher works hard for a few years, then he or she can sit back and coast through the rest of their years until retirement, even if that means the students suffer. On the other hand, proponents believe that by rewarding the teachers with tenure, it allows them to focus all their attention on being great teachers, instead of worrying about losing their jobs. These supporters also believe that teachers work hard for low wages and that tenure is a reasonable benefit for all the time they put towards educating today's youth.

I am going to have to go with the anti-tenure side in this debate. In high school, I had a few teachers who were tenured and basically gave up trying to teach us anything. These teachers would sit back with their feet up on their desks and tell us to read our text books day after day, and never actually teach the material. Then when the time came to take tests, half the class would have cheat notes which they made using tests from students who took the class the year before (this individual NEVER rewrote any of his tests), and the rest of us would study our butts off with the few materials we had and earn grades ranging from OK to terrible. If this teacher hadn't been tenure, then maybe the school could have done something about his performance(or in this case, the lack of performance). I think that a teacher who knows he or she has to work hard to keep his or her job will be a better teacher than the one who knows he is safe.

http://www.education.com/debate/teacher-tenure/

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/7/19/what-if-college-tenure-dies/rethinking-college-tenure

http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/200

Kids and Social Networking

Facebook has recently hit 500 million users. Many of those users are kids and, according to neuroscientist Susan Greenfield, social networking sites could be having adverse effects on children. She, along with other scientists and psychologists, believe that children who use sites like Facebook on a regular basis are shortening their attention spans, hurting their communication skills, and hindering their abilities to make and keep relationships off-line. Some psychologists also believe that these sites are teaching kids to expect instant gratification.

I don't know about the science of the brain and how these websites can effect it, but I do believe that there is some truth to the idea that Facebook and MySpace could be damaging to communication and relationship skills. There are age requirements for these sites, but all kids have to do is change their birthdates by a couple of years and they are good to go. Once online, they become obsessed with all things Facebook. In my opinion, they spend to much time on the computer making friends instead of making them the old fashion way: in person. They focus so much energy on their "profiles" and "status updates" that I think sometimes they forget that there are more things in life besides Facebook. And then there's the problem of cyber bullying which seems to be becoming more and more prevalent in the news these days. Kids can go online and say things they would get in trouble for saying at school, and then other kids join in on the bullying because they aren't actually talking to a human being. They are just talking to a computer, and so they aren't seeing the effects their words are having on the person being harassed or teased.

I am not bashing social networking sites or the people who enjoy them, I just think that children, and adults for that matter, should learn to make friends and communicate with people in real life before they jump onto the internet. I do not personally have a Facebook account, nor do I ever care to have one. However, I think that Facebook is great for individuals looking to keep in touch with relatives and friends whom they can't see or talk to on a regular basis. But, personally, if I want to talk to someone I would rather call, text, or visit them. But hey, that's just me.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1153583/Social-websites-harm-childrens-brains-Chilling-warning-parents-neuroscientist.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kari-henley/facebook-and-kids-are-the_b_177357.html

http://harrison.patch.com/articles/constant-technology-bad-for-kids-development

Moral Developlment

Moral Development vs Ethics
This post is in part a reply to (inspired by) the post entitled “Normal Development.”
Moral development has been a popular topic in psychology beginning with the works of Jean Piaget. I am more interested in Lawrence Kohlberg. Kohlberg followed Piaget’s model claiming that logic and morality develop through constructive stages. Expanding on Piaget's work, Kohlberg determined that the process of moral development was principally concerned with justice, and that it continued throughout the individual's lifetime (Kholberg 1958.
For a good example of how moral development is a lifelong process, I examine myself. I came to the realization a few years ago that I had an unconventional upbringing and may not have developed the same ideas of what are socially acceptable ethical principals as the majority of the American population. My future career is one in which ethical principals must be followed to avoid law suits. For this reason I took a class called “Health care Ethics and Regulations.” Here I learned that ethics and personal moral codes are often in conflict. For example: In the case of homosexuality, many believe it is morally wrong, yet some of the same people also believe it is unethical to discriminate legally against a group of people by disallowing them the same rights afforded heterosexuals. It is my opinion that Kohlberg does not recognize a distinction between moral judgment and ethical justice.
Kohlberg's six stages follow Piaget's constructivist requirements for a stage model, as described in his theory of cognitive development, using the principal that it is extremely rare to regress backward in stages—to lose the use of higher stage abilities. In other words stages cannot be skipped; “each provides a new and necessary perspective, more comprehensive and differentiated than its predecessors but integrated with them.” (Walker, 1989)
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
(How can I avoid punishment?)
2. Self-interest orientation
(What's in it for me?)
Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(Social norms)
(The good boy/good girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(Law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
(Principled conscience)


The 3 Major Criticisms of Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development:
• Does moral reasoning necessarily lead to moral behavior? Kohlberg's theory is concerned with moral thinking, but there is a big difference between knowing what we ought to do versus our actual actions.
• Is justice the only aspect of moral reasoning we should consider? Critics have pointed out that Kohlberg's theory of moral development overemphasizes the concept as justice when making moral choices. Factors such as compassion, caring and other interpersonal feelings may play an important part in moral reasoning.
• Does Kohlberg's theory overemphasize Western philosophy? Individualistic cultures emphasize personal rights while collectivist cultures stress the importance of society and community. Eastern cultures may have different moral outlooks that Kohlberg's theory does not account for.


Refrence sites

http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/overview.html

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3960446079037918273

Kohlberg, Lawrence (1958). "The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16". Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.h justice, and that it continued throughout the individual's lifetime


Walker, Lawrence, J. (February 1989). "A longitudinal study of moral reasoning". Child Development (Child Development, Vol. 60, No. 1) 60 (1): 157–166

My Experience With Co-Sleeping

I have always co-slept with my children. They were in a bassinet next to my bed until 2 or 3 months old. I did as my pediatrician said and they all slept on their back, without pillows nor stuffed animals. I had the bassinet right next to my bed.
I chose not to breast feed my children for a few reasons. One is that I've always been a working mother. After a few weeks they would start to sleep 6 or 7 hours in between feedings. Bottle fed babies seem to go longer between feedings, which allows for more sleep.
At about the 3rd month when they were a bit bigger, I wanted them to lie on my chest and stomach to sleep. I wanted them next to me. I've always been a very light sleeper, very aware of their every move.
Now my 4 year old son sleeps right in the middle of my husband and I. He has his own bed, all my children do. When my husband is out of town for work, I have my 4 year old, 11 year old, and even my 16 year old that loves to snuggle with her mom. As most parents know a sleeping child is beautiful. I love to look at my children when they are asleep. Maybe it's because they're not talking.

Corporal Punishment and Negative Social Consequences

A study was conducted by Maryland-based anti-spanking advocate John Benjamin Guthrow. He compared data from state, federal and local government agencies for the top 1 states who use corporal punishment most frequently in their schools. He found a correlation between corporal punishment in schools and a variety of negative social consequences.

Even though it is possible that corporal punishment is directly related to those children murdering someone when they get older this study does not determine that is true. There are other factors that could determine this correlation. For instance, it is the parents' and teachers' that decide if spanking should be allowed in school so it is possible that the high murder rate is because of adults' violent influence. Also those states that allowed spanking had high poverty and low education and health. Murder rates could be the result of poor environmental conditions at home rather than the school.

I hypothesis that negative social consequences is directly related home environment rather than corporal punishment in schools. In order to fully understand if spanking is related to negative social consequences the sample should include schools from all states rather than just the five states with the highest murder rate and the five states with the lowest murder rate. I would use longitudinal design to determine if spanking was directly related to negative social consequences. By using longitudinal design this study will eliminate bias by determining if there is a direct association rather than finding correlations in the data.


http://www.womensenews.org/story/health/010923/experts-say-harms-children